How to Vote in the St. Petersburg Elections (February 4)

Who Benefits from the Fables About the Black-Hundred Danger?

Published:Zreniye, No. 2, February 4, 1907. Signed:N. Lenin.

      Published according to theZreniyetext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Foreign Languages Publishing House,1962,

      Moscow,Volume 12,

      pages75-80.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Longago, revolutionary Social-Democrats pointed out that the fables about the
Black-Hundred danger have been deliberately invented and circulated by the
Cadets to stave off thedanger from the Left.

Noattention was paid to the Social-Democrats. The liberal press has been
howling in chorus about the Black-Hundred danger. The petty-bourgeois radicals,
the

Narodniks,[4]naïvely copied the liberals. The opportunist
Social-Democrats also fell into line with the liberals, and in some cases
(e.g., in St. Petersburg) stooped to downright blacklegging against the
proletariat.

Butwhat do the elections show?

Everyonenow sees that there has been aleftwardswing in the mood of
the voters. The Black Hundreds have suffered a much heavier defeat at the
elections than they did last year. The revolutionary Social-Democrats haveproved to be right. The Black-Hundred danger in the elections is afablecirculated by the Cadets., who are bargaining with Stolypin
behind the backs of the people. It is well known that in St. Petersburg
Mr. Vodovozov, who last year voted for the Cadets, has now renounced them, and
has publicly exposed Milyukov’s visit to Stolypin. Milyukov has had to
admit the fact. But he is stillconcealingfrom the people the terms on
which Stolypin is prepared to legalise the Cadets!’

Intheir newspapers the Cadets are now straining every nerve to convince
Stolypin of their moderation, their modesty, their loyalty, their independence
of the “Lefts” and their readiness to fight them.

Anadvantageous and convenient policy, is it not? To curry favour with Stolypin
      and his friends, i.e., the Black Hundreds, by renouncing the Lefts, by
      fighting the Lefts in the press, at meetings, in the elections. And to
      curry favour with the Lefts, or rather, with simpletons and black-legs
      among the Lefts, by vociferating about the Black-Hundred danger, with the
      call: Vote for the Cadets so as not to split the vote!

Thatis exactly the policy the Cadets have pursued in. Moscow. On the very day
of the elections, Mr. Kokoshkin, former member of the Duma and one of the most
prominent Cadets, wrote inRusskiye

Vedomosti[5]:

“Itis obvious to everyone that the Left bloc cannot win the votes of
   those non-party elements who are vacillating between the Octobrists and the
   Cadets; it cannot capture a single vote from the Union of October
   Seventeenth. But it can capture votes from the people’s freedom
   party, andthereby contribute to the triumph of reaction, and this will
   be the only practical resultof its activities, if successful.”

“Itis obvious to everyone that the Left bloc cannot win the votes of
   those non-party elements who are vacillating between the Octobrists and the
   Cadets; it cannot capture a single vote from the Union of October
   Seventeenth. But it can capture votes from the people’s freedom
   party, andthereby contribute to the triumph of reaction, and this will
   be the only practical resultof its activities, if successful.”

Mr.Kokoshkin wrote that on the morning of election day. And the elections
showed that Mr. Kokoshkin was telling afoul lie. The result of the
Left bloc’s activities showed that it was impossible for the Rights to
have achieved atriumphin Moscow,no matter how many votes we
captured from the Cadets!

TheMoscow elections haveprovedthat the fable about the Black-Hundred
danger is aCadet lie, which can hence forth be repeated only by
deliberate blacklegs among the Lefts.

Takethe votes, district by district. We give them in full in this issue in our
article “Preliminary Returns of the Moscow Elections”. These figures
show thatin 14 districts out of

			       16[1]the votes
polled by the Octobrists wereless than halfthe combined Cadet and
Left vote. Consequently,in 14 districtsthe Lefts could not, by their
independent action,“contribute to the triumph of reaction”.

Mr.Kokoshkinlied, slandered the Left bloc, when he called it an
abettor of reaction!

Mr.Kokoshkin triedto scarethe voters with hisfalse hoodabout the Black-Hundred danger, in order to deter them from voting for the Left
bloc.

Mr.Kokoshkin, like the St. Petersburg Cadets,is afraidto put thereal issueeven before voters with property qualification; he is
afraid to ask even them whether,on principle, the voters sympathise
with a party that parleys with Stolypin, or with the Social-Democrats and the
Trudoviks. The Kokoshkins, like the St. Petersburg Cadets, are not speculating
on the intelligence of the voters,but on the terror of the petty
bourgeois, who is hypnotised by the wailing of the servile liberal press
about the Black-Hundred danger.

Andthe Moscow elections were indeed elections byterrified petty
bourgeois. Here is confirmation of this from a source that surely no one
will suspect of sympathy with the “Bolsheviks”.

BirzheviyeVedomosti[6]of January 29 published a report from its special
correspondent on how “Moscow Is Electing Electors”. This is what this
correspondent writes:

“Afterleaving the line, the voters withdraw a good distance away and
   compare notes.“‘Well,I suppose you voted for Gringmut,’ a contractor asks
   one of his foremen.“‘Oh,no,Sergei Petrovich, we are for the Cadets,’ answers
   the foreman, a tubby little fellow.“‘Whynotfor the Left bloc?’ inquires the contractor.”‘Toorisky,that would split the vote,’ answers the
   foreman.”

“Afterleaving the line, the voters withdraw a good distance away and
   compare notes.

“‘Well,I suppose you voted for Gringmut,’ a contractor asks
   one of his foremen.

“‘Oh,no,Sergei Petrovich, we are for the Cadets,’ answers
   the foreman, a tubby little fellow.

“‘Whynotfor the Left bloc?’ inquires the contractor.

”‘Toorisky,that would split the vote,’ answers the
   foreman.”

Sothat is why the mass of ordinary townspeople voted for the Cadets in Moscow!
The ordinary townsman voted against the Leftsnot because he felt any
antipathy against them, but because it was “too risky,that would
split the vote,” i.e., becausehe believed the Cadet liars, who
took advantage of their monopoly of the liberal daily press to fool the ordinary
townsman.

Theelections of January 28 in Moscow show that four election lists could not
split the votein such a way as to create the danger of a Black-Hundred
victory!

InMoscow the Cadets hoodwinked the frightened towns people. The St. Petersburg
voters should know of this;they must not let themselves be caught a second time by the Cadets, who are
      bargaining with Stolypin!

Wealso draw the attention of our readers to a comparison of the figures (for 9
districts of Moscow—unfortunately fuller information is unavailable) for
1906 and 1907. It is common knowledge that all Cadet henchmen and blacklegs
among the Lefts are clamouring about the Senate interpretations as proof that
the 1906 figures arenothing to go by, that we must expect something
worse in the 1907 elections, and that there is now a Black-Hundred danger.

Butwhat has Moscow proved? In 1906, in 9 districts, 13,220 votes were cast for
the Cadets, 5,669 for the Rights (Octobrists) plus 690 (for the monarchists), in
all 6,359 (perhaps evensomewhat more, for, as can be seen from the
figures we quote, there are no returns for the monarchist vote in several of
these 9 districts).

In1907, in the same districts, 14,133 votes were cast against the Black
Hundreds (11,451 for the Cadets and 2,682 for the Lefts), while 5,902 votes were
cast for the Black Hundreds (4,412 for the Octobrists and 1,490 for the
monarchists).

Thus,despite the Senate interpretations,the total votein 1907 is
even slightly higher than it was in 1906 (20,025 as compared with 19,579). The
anti-Black-Hundred vote ishigherthan in 1906 (14,133 as compared with
13,220); the Black-Hundred vote islowerthan in 1906 (5,902 as
compared with 6,359).

Thefactsfrom Moscow prove that the 1906 figurescanbe taken
for comparison, for the 1907 figures show animprovement.

Andwhat do the St. Petersburg figures for 1906 show? They show that in 9
districts electing 114 electors, thehighestBlack-Hundred vote in 1906
wasless than half of the lowest Cadet

			      vote.[2]

Thus,a split in the anti-Black-Hundred vote between the Cadets and the Leftscannot result ina victoryfor the Rights in St. Petersburg.

Eventhe elections of electors by urban voters in St. PetersburgUyezd,[3]which took place on January 29, show that the Black-Hundred
danger is a Cadet falsehood. Even among these voters, who had the greatest
difficulty in obtaining voting forms and going to the polling-booth, the Black
Hundreds gotso fewvotes that they could not have won,no matter
how the vote was split. The Cadets received at least 1,099 votes, theSocial-Democrats603, the Octobrists 652, and the Union of the Russian

People[7]20. The Rightscould nothave been elected,
no matter how many votes we captured from the Cadets! We therefore declare
most emphatically that those people in St. Petersburg who are now calling
upon the electorate to vote for the Cadets, to refrain from splitting the
vote because of the Black-Hundred danger,are deliberately lying and
deceiving the voters. Those who are not participating in the elections
in St. Petersburg, even in a single ward, because of the Black-Hundred
danger,are deliberately lyingand deceiving the voters to cover
up theirblacklegging against the Left bloc.

InSt. Petersburg, as in Moscow, there is no Black-Hundred danger, but there is
a Cadet danger. There is the danger that the ignorant and terrified petty
bourgeois will vote for the Cadets, not out of any antipathy against the Left
bloc, towards the Social-Democrats and the Trudoviks, but out of fear of
splitting the vote, a fear inspired by the lies of the Cadet press.

Allthose who wantintelligentvoting in St. Petersburg must combatthis“danger”.

Thereis no Black-Hundred danger in St. Petersburg, there is only a Cadet
danger. Therefore it will be unpardonable blacklegging against the Leftsto
abstainfrom voting in those three districts (Vasilyevsky Ostrov,
Rozhdestvensky and Liteiny) where (judging by the 1906 figures) a victory of the
Black Hundreds is possible if the vote is split. These three districts elect 46
electors out of the total of 174 (160 for the urban, 14 for the worker
curia). Consequently,these districts cannot affect the result of the
elections. But they maygreatlyaffect the victory of the Lefts or
theCadets. Let us assume that the Social-Democrats and the Trudoviks are
      successful in four districts: Spassky, Moscow, Petersburg and Vyborg (we
      have taken these districts at random). The Lefts will then have 74
      electors (60 from the city and 14 from the workers). If the Cadets are
      successful inallthe other districts, they will have 100
    electorsand get all their candidates into the Duma!If, however,
    the Black Hundreds are elected in the three districts mentioned above (46
    electors), the Cadets will have only 54, and they will beobligedto combine with the Lefts and gettwo seats out of the six in the
    Duma.

Thatmeans that whoever abstains from voting in the three
“Black-Hundred” districts of St. Petersburg issecretly helping
the Cadetsand is blacklegging against the Left bloc!

Citizensand voters! Give no credence to the deceivers who talk to you about the
danger of splitting the vote in St. Petersburg. Give no credence to their false
tales of a Black-Hundred danger in St. Petersburg.

Thereis no Black-Hundred danger in St. Petersburg. The Rights cannot win in
St. Petersburg as a result of a division of the votes between Cadets and Lefts.

Donot vote out of fear of a “danger” invented by the Cadet liars
(who run to Stolypin by the back door); vote as your conscience and your
convictions guide you.

Willyou vote for the liberal bourgeoisie, who want to saddle the peasants with
ruinous land-compensation payments, betray the peasants into the hands of the
liberal landlords, and are secretly bargaining with Stolypin and carrying on
negotiations with the Black Hundreds?

Orwill you vote for the Social-Democratic Labour Party, for the party of the
proletariat supported by all Trudovik parties?

Citizens,vote for the Left bloc!

[1]There are 17 election wards in Moscow. Complete figures for the
Pyatnitsky (17th) District are not yet available. Here the Cadets obtained
at least 1,488 votes, the Octobrists, probably about 600, and the Left
bloc, probably about 250.—Lenin

[2]The figures are givenin fullinZreniye, No. 1. (See
p. 49 of this volume—Ed.) We are reproducing them in this issue to make
them known toallSt. Petersburg voters.—Lenin

[3]See footnote to p. 18.—Ed.

[4]Narodism—a petty-bourgeois trend in the
Russian revolutionary movement that grew up in the sixties and seventies of the
nineteenth century and comprised mainly progressive intellectuals from the lower
social-estates. With the objective of rousing the peasantry to struggle against
absolutism, the revolutionary youth “went among the people”, to the
village, gaining there, however, no support. The Narodniks held to the view that
capitalism in Russia was a fortuitous phenomenon with no prospect of
development, and that for this reason there would be no growth and development
of a Russian proletariat. The Narodniks considered the peasantry to be the main
revolutionary force and regarded the village commune as the embryo of
socialism. The Narodniks proceeded from an erroneous view of the role of the
class struggle in historical development, maintaining that history is made by
heroes, by outstanding personalities, who are followed passively by the popular
masses.
 p. 75

[5]Russkiye Vedomosti(Russian Recorder)—a daily
newspaper expressing the views of the moderate liberal intelligentsia, andpublished in Moscow from 1863. It was the organ of the Right Cadets from 1905
onwards. It was closed down after the October Revolution of 1917 in
      company with other counter-revolutionary
      newspapers.

[6]Birzheviye Vedomosti(Stock-Exchange Recorder)—a
bourgeois daily
newspaper published in St. Petersburg from 1880. The name of this paper became
proverbial; it was used as a synonym for lack of principle and corruption of the
bourgeois press. It was closed down at the end of October 1917.

[7]Union of the Russian People—an extremely reactionary,
Black-Hundred organisation of monarchists, formed in October 1905 in
St. Petersburg to
struggle against the revolutionary movement. The Union was an alliance of
reactionary landowners, big house owners, merchants, police officials, clergy,
urban petty bourgeoisie, kulaks, declassed and criminal elements. It was headed
by V. A. Bobrinsky, A. I. Dubrovin, P. A. Krushevan, N.Y. Markov the Second,
V. M. Purishkevich, and others. Its organs were the newspapersRusskoye
Znamya(Russian Banner),Obyedineniye(Unity)

andGroza(The Storm). Branches of the Union were opened in
many Russian cities.

TheUnion defended the immutability of tsarist autocracy, the retention of
semi-feudal landlord farming, and the privileges of the nobility. Its programme
watchword was the monarchist-nationalist slogan of the days of
serfdom—“the orthodox faith, the autocracy, the nation”. Its chief
method of struggle against the revolution was pogroms and
assassinations. Acting with the connivance and help of the police, members of
the Union openly beat up or assassinated revolutionary workers and
representatives of the democratic intelligentsia, broke up and fired on
meetings, organised anti-Jewish pogroms, and engaged in a fanatical persecution
of all non-Russians.

Afterthe dissolution of the Second Duma, the Union split into two
organisations—the Chamber of the Archangel Michael, and the Union of
the Russian People proper; the former, headed by Purishkevich, favoured using
the Third Duma for counter revolutionary purposes; the latter, under Dubrovin,
employed the tactics of open terror. The two Black-Hundred organisations were
abolished at the time of the February bourgeois-democratic revolution in
1917. After the October Socialist Revolution former members of these
organisations played an active part in counter-revolutionary insurrections and
conspiracies against Soviet power.